Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by DJW001

Why do you ask? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Oh, wait, Exuberant1 warned me about this:

The opponent is probably attempting to drive you in a circle to monopolize your time.

Now that you're taking my advice, are you willing to begin examining the Apollo mission from a more objective and skeptical standpoint?


*If Foosm does it in reverse (acknowledges we didn't go but could have), then he will have taken the high ground and you will look like you are playing catch-up.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again, I think the science behind Apollo is sound, that in theory landing men on the moon is possible. I just dont think that the US took the risk. I think it was a political move to see how the Soviets would react. The Apollo program was a dual use project. I think the craft they were building was not ready on time to meet deadlines for the actual moon landing and were not shielded against to the full extent of radiation found in interstellar space. Though they did have the scientists and engineers try.

Speaking of radiation watch this:

“The movie sent chills down my spine,”

Solar Storm

August 18, 2011: For the first time, a spacecraft far from Earth has turned and watched a solar storm engulf our planet. The movie, released today during a NASA press conference, has galvanized solar physicists, who say it could lead to important advances in space weather forecasting.

“Until quite recently, spacecraft could see CMEs only when they were still quite close to the sun. By calculating a CME's speed during this brief period, we were able to estimate when it would reach Earth. After the first few hours, however, the CME would leave this field of view and after that we were 'in the dark' about its progress.”
“The ability to track a cloud continuously from the Sun to Earth is a big improvement,” she continues. “In the past, our very best predictions of CME arrival times had uncertainties of plus or minus 4 hours,” she continues. “The kind of movies we’ve seen today could significantly reduce the error bars.”

The movies pinpoint not only the arrival time of the CME, but also its mass. From the brightness of the cloud, researchers can calculate the gas density with impressive precision. Their results for the Dec. 2008 event agreed with actual in situ measurements at the few percent level. When this technique is applied to future storms, forecasters will be able to estimate its impact with greater confidence.

science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by AliensAreDemons


what do you mean by ''what time frame we are really in?" and what is real.

thanks

Originally posted by FoosM
Ive said it before, Ill say it again, I think the science behind Apollo is sound, that in theory landing men on the moon is possible. I just dont think that the US took the risk. I think it was a political move to see how the Soviets would react.

They would either expose the US, or blackmail them for the rest of the Cold War. I already told you this, and contemporary intelligence would tell them the same thing.

I also note how you don't actually say how the USSR apparently did react to the supposed hoax; sit on their hands and do nothing. They don't even try and discredit the landings, despite having tons of evidence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You nor any of the HBs responded to that post. I wonder why.

The Apollo program was a dual use project. I think the craft they were building was not ready on time to meet deadlines for the actual moon landing and were not shielded against to the full extent of radiation found in interstellar space. Though they did have the scientists and engineers try.

Because the program that already had astronauts die on the pad wouldn't just push the dates back, you're asserting. Meanwhile, the Soviets were cutting safety standards left and right to try and win the Space Race. Given the contemporary level of control the USSR had of its press, it would have been easier for them to pull of the hoax. And they didn't. Because it would still be impossible.

Speaking of radiation watch this:

No. Quit spamming.

Originally posted by FoosM
I think the craft they were building was not ready on time to meet deadlines for the actual moon landing and were not shielded against to the full extent of radiation found in interstellar space. Though they did have the scientists and engineers try.

Perhaps you can clear up my confusion on the above. If the scientists and engineers tried they either were successful or not. Since you think they weren't, why haven't they come forward to say so ? Why haven't other scientists and engineers since then examined the designs and pronounced them unsuitable for the Apollo missions. Certainly others have designed other similar spacecraft and would be in the know. Even amateurs with a modicum of knowledge in the feild would be able to make such a determination. Has no one in the intervening decades bothered to look or have they all been silenced ? You have all the data needed to make such a determination, who's stopping you from publishing a definitive engineering analysis and exposing that the vehicles (and crew) wouldn't be able to cross the VABs or survive the cislunar radiation environment ? Why would the NASA hoaxers allow the drawings of the CM and LM become public knowledge and take the risk that someone would perform just such an analysis.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
Ive said it before, Ill say it again, I think the science behind Apollo is sound, that in theory landing men on the moon is possible. I just dont think that the US took the risk. I think it was a political move to see how the Soviets would react.

They would either expose the US, or blackmail them for the rest of the Cold War. I already told you this, and contemporary intelligence would tell them the same thing.

And we have said it before.
Is that all you have?
Because all you have is baseless speculation.
You dont know what the US had on the USSR.
You dont even know if they were working together the whole time.
You dont know what deals the US and USSR made.

In his famed threat to capitalism in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev thundered "We will bury you." He has since insisted that Communism would win in an economic rather than a thermonuclear sense. But last week Khrushchev had to seek U.S. help to prevent his own economy from being buried. A Soviet trade mission asked to buy about $170 million's worth of U.S. wheat.

www.time.com...

Thats about as good reason as any to keep your mouth shut when your people are starving.

You dont know anything that went on except what they want you to know.
So speculations does not = to fact.

You know what the Americans would tell the Russians if they announced the moon landing was fake?
They would say, "Prove it. Prove it with your failed N1, you bitter basterds"

Originally posted by FoosM

Because all you have is baseless speculation.
You dont know what the US had on the USSR.
You dont even know if they were working together the whole time.
You dont know what deals the US and USSR made.

We do know for a fact that there are no soviet images of the Apollo landers or empty landing sites.

They couldn't have blown the whistle if they wanted to.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
I think the craft they were building was not ready on time to meet deadlines for the actual moon landing and were not shielded against to the full extent of radiation found in interstellar space. Though they did have the scientists and engineers try.

Perhaps you can clear up my confusion on the above. If the scientists and engineers tried they either were successful or not. Since you think they weren't, why haven't they come forward to say so ?

Well I think your an intelligent enough person to answer this question yourself.

there are very few whistleblowers who step forward due to fear of retaliation and anxiety about their future.

First, the history of corporate wrongdoing shows that whistleblowers rarely come forward. This is not surprising. In my professional experience, the overwhelming majority (like 99%) of employees when made aware of serious wrongdoing involving their employer will do nothing. Employees generally seek to curry favor with their employers, not piss them off. Promotions and financial rewards come to those who support the enterprise and its goals, as opposed to those who find profound flaws in business practices and leadership decision-making. Humans are also hardwired emotionally to generally avoid confrontation and seek the approval of others. I would wager that if you were to ask most people whether they would publicly take an unpopular ethical position and endure five years of criticism to eventually be proven right, the answer would overwhelmingly be, “no, thank you.”

www.forbes.com...

As well, are you saying there werent any whistleblowers during the Apollo program?
Or people who quit out of frustration?

Why haven't other scientists and engineers since then examined the designs and pronounced them unsuitable for the Apollo missions.

What designs? You mean the final built hardware, blue-prints?
You think people havent done this? Have you looked into it yourself?
Or, when it was presented, did you attack the messenger and not the information that was provided?

Originally posted by FoosM
What designs? You mean the final built hardware, blue-prints?
You think people havent done this? Have you looked into it yourself?
Or, when it was presented, did you attack the messenger and not the information that was provided?

They must be hundreds if not more people in the spacecraft business in the intervening decades that aren't employed by NASA or even in the US. Where's the "OMG, they would have died" report ? All I've ever seen is half assed hand waving by people w/o the modicum of knowledge I refered to earlier. JW would be one such dilettante (negative connotation implied). Point me to someone you think is most qualified. Show me the engineering analysis that can't be disproven. I've yet to see anything that even passes the giggle test.
And how has the US Govt managed to silence you ? You're not employed nor beholden to NASA or the US. What possible influence could be exerted on you (or your ilk) to silence you from spreading the "truth" ?

Originally posted by FoosM
As well, are you saying there werent any whistleblowers during the Apollo program?
Or people who quit out of frustration?

Give me the list of spacecraft design, test, etc personnel who have cried "foul" because the CM or LM wasn't up to the task. It doesn't even have to be the radiation task.

Just an aside but ...

Originally posted by FoosM
So speculations does not = to fact.

You guys are going to break the irony meter if you keep pegging it like this. That's 2x in as many days. Should we make a list of all the unsupported assertions the HB'ers claim must have happened ?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
[They couldn't have blown the whistle if they wanted to.

It depends on which hoax theory you subscribe to. Theories (and I misuse the term) that have the astronauts staying in the CM and in LEO while some unmanned satellites go to the Moon ... yes they could have blown the whistle on that.

reply to post by MacTheKnife


Describe how.

I want to know how you think the lying soviet filth could convince the world America didn't go to the moon.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by MacTheKnife

 

Describe how.
I want to know how you think the lying soviet filth could convince the world America didn't go to the moon.

As the CSM orbitted over Russia it would have easily be seen and tracked in real time. All the USSR would have to have done is tell everyone else in the world the orbital details and say "if you don't believe us, look for yourself". And there were people looking ...

www.astr.ua.edu...

Originally posted by FoosM
I think the craft they were building was not ready on time to meet deadlines for the actual moon landing and were not shielded against to the full extent of radiation found in interstellar space. Though they did have the scientists and engineers try.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Perhaps you can clear up my confusion on the above. If the scientists and engineers tried they either were successful or not. Since you think they weren't, why haven't they come forward to say so ? Why haven't other scientists and engineers since then examined the designs and pronounced them unsuitable for the Apollo missions. Certainly others have designed other similar spacecraft and would be in the know. Even amateurs with a modicum of knowledge in the feild would be able to make such a determination.

There are two approaches being considered here : 1) whistle-blowing after the event, based on information available to a person involved at the time and 2) the reconstruction of events, based on information available to a person outside the program. The first is limited by the certainty an individual would have about whether their supposition of perceived inconsistencies is correct ot not ... the more partial their information the less likely they are to bring it forward. The more complete their knowledge the more likely they are flagged as a security risk and the more specifically pressures may exist to prevent their disclosure. The second is confused, if the radiation issue is in fact the defining issue, by the fact that the hardware demonstratably could perform the task required ( returning to the moon and back ), since that is what it was designed by highly skilled engineering teams to do, and that given this fact there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the radiation doses measured as having been received.

The question is, if tomorrow the government itself announced the venture never happened, would the experts looking at the huge amount of material available, be able to deduce that there was a mismatch between information about the hardware used, and the information available about the radiation environment in the Earth / Moon vicinity. For that matter would interested amateurs ?

Originally posted by bansheegirl
The question is, if tomorrow the government itself announced the venture never happened, would the experts looking at the huge amount of material available, be able to deduce that there was a mismatch between information about the hardware used, and the information available about the radiation environment in the Earth / Moon vicinity. For that matter would interested amateurs ?

Absolutely. If Jarrah or any of the HBers were truely confident that radiation is the bugaboo they claim, they can prove it now. And not by mis-citing some Russian paper but using the tools people use to design spacecraft.

www.spacerad.com...

There's also CRESSRAD and Shieldose that would give a go - nogo answer to that type of question (would the astronauts have survived). The construction of the Apollo CM is well documented. You've seen the HB quote various portions of it (pertaining to hull thickness, etc).

I suspect any grad student in the proper aerospace field could do the needed calculations as well.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

As the CSM orbitted over Russia it would have easily be seen and tracked in real time.

You mean "if the csm orbitted over Russia"...

"if"

You seriously oughtta give into your desire to be intellectually honest - it is rewarding.

reply to post by Exuberant1

You mean "if the csm orbitted over Russia"...

"if"

You seriously oughtta give into your desire to be intellectually honest - it is rewarding.

You are very quick to jump on small semantic details but very slow to respond to direct questions:

You are making bold claims which you cannot prove. Count the bold unprovable claims you just now made.

For example?

Incidentally, you will notice that I acknowledge when I make a mistake. Has FoosM ever done that?

Originally posted by DJW001

Incidentally, you will notice that I acknowledge when I make a mistake. Has FoosM ever done that?

I'm sure foosm has acknowledged your mistakes plenty of times.

Foosm is one of the more objective skeptics posting in this thread. He is far more impartial than his opponents, and uses far less debate tactics (e.g. asking questions for effect instead of to get an answer which is needed).

reply to post by Exuberant1

Foosm is one of the more objective skeptics posting in this thread. He is far more impartial than his opponents, and uses far less debate tactics (e.g. asking questions for effect instead of to get an answer which is needed).

Wow. You really don't care about your credibility at all, do you? Now, please respond to this part of the post or admit that your statement is completely ungrounded:

You are making bold claims which you cannot prove. Count the bold unprovable claims you just now made.

For example?

Originally posted by DJW001

Wow.

Really, this thread isn't so exciting. There is no need for "wowing".

Pro-Apollo arguments would best be made in the absence of such hyperbole.

Those arguments would then for obvious reasons be more concise and credible.

*By refraining from the sort of tactics his opponents use, Jarrah White appears to be the more rational and logical person in the Apollo debate which is ongoing on youtube.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
As well, are you saying there werent any whistleblowers during the Apollo program?
Or people who quit out of frustration?

Give me the list of spacecraft design, test, etc personnel who have cried "foul" because the CM or LM wasn't up to the task. It doesn't even have to be the radiation task.

See that people. He wants a "list"
One person is not enough.
10 people wouldnt be enough probably.
He probably wants to hear a complaint from every single NASA employee to convince him
that there was something wrong with the machines.

But dude, this has been well known:

Baron was a rank and file inspector at Kennedy from September 1965 until November 1966, when he asked for and received a leave of absence. He had made observations; had collected gossip, rumor, and critical comments from his fellow employees; and had written a set of condemnatory notes. He had detailed, but not documented, difficulties with persons, parts, equipment, and procedures. Baron had observed the faults of a large-scale organization and apparently had performed his job as a quality inspector with a vengeance. He noted poor workmanship, spacecraft 012 contamination, discrepancies with installations, problems in the environmental control system, and many infractions of cleanliness and safety rules.

Baron passed on these and other criticisms to his superiors and friends; then he deliberately let his findings leak out to newsmen. North American considered his actions irresponsible and discharged him on 5 January 1967. The company then analyzed and refuted each of Baron's charges and allegations. In the rebuttal, North American denied anything but partial validity to Baron's wide-ranging accusations, although some company officials later testified before Congress that about half of the charges were well-grounded. When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.

So after Baron was immediately eliminated by either fortune or foul play, this helped shut any opportunity for further whistle blowing regarding NASA. And that list... well that list of persons was probably used against those who spoke up.

Besides Baron there was of course Bill Kaysing and Gus Grissom (also a complainer who conveniently died)

And lets not forget one of the biggest murdered whistleblower:

Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries—indeed of all the world—cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries

Several historians have speculated that Kennedy wanted an Apollo landing to occur during a possible second term, and it is clear that NASA’s original goal was a Moon landing by 1967, most likely based upon the assumption that the Soviets would also try to achieve a space spectacular by the 50th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. But in 1963 Kennedy already knew that Apollo would become incredibly expensive by any potential second term. It is possible that if he lived and headed into an election year, Kennedy might have sought to delay the schedule so that the peak budget years occurred later, or were spread out. Kennedy’s thinking might also have been influenced by CIA intelligence data that in 1964 indicated that the Soviets were not undertaking a crash effort to race the Americans to the Moon.

In fact, one intriguing question is whether or not Kennedy’s UN speech may have actually led the Soviets to not take Apollo seriously. Perhaps someday a scholar digging through Soviet-era archives will locate a KGB or Politburo analysis of Kennedy’s United Nations speech.

Clearly there was much doubt that Apollo was possible.
The Soviets, gave the US a 25% for Apollo 8.




www.thespacereview.com...